later, a look at the new health care law. with a former adviser to kathleen sibelius. from the nation's capital, this is "washington journal." . . a bill on small business lending. and on the senate floor, an

extension of tax breaks and unemployment benefits. live coverage of all of these events and more on a very active day in the nation's capital. and to that speech by the president tonight. your thoughts on what he should say to america. jackie calms writes it up in "the new york times." she writes that --

the first call this morning on what the president should say tonight. joe, you are on the line from georgia. republican. caller: thank you very much. love c-span. i think the president ought to say we need energy independence.

just because would happen with bp, bp said they will be held responsible. they should be responsive. increase our energy supply. a great thing that happened yesterday. tom grays was sworn in for my district. a good friend of mine. he talked about cutting spending. the thing president obama tonight needs to talk about even with by pithos a responsibility is but also would need to cut spending. in all the years i call c-span, this is the most exciting day because tom grays will be my congressman. sworn in yesterday. a good friend of mine. and he wants to give us teeth -- cheap energy -- will have to drill, we have to increase the supply. i went to georgia tech. if you increase the supply, the price goes down. host: the point about drilling -- what rules should be in place in light of this bill?

caller: i think that the role of to be if there is a spill, the company -- bp in this case -- ought to be held responsible. that is no question. they are having all of the oil companies testifying. the last thing we need is more taxes. we need less taxes and less spending. so i think that we ought to encourage people to drill, but if there is a mistake just like exxon valdez way back in 1999, the promise of them, and i think bp of the be punished. i am a bp stockholder and i have already been punished. my stock has gone from 60 down to 30. host: we are asking folks what the president should say tonight. and it a hearing, we will hear from the ceo of several of the oil companies including bp and exxonmobil and including several other companies. several hours on the hill today

by these oil companies ceo's at a house subcommittee hearing. bridgeport, conn. gerry, independent. what should the president said? caller: let me start with what i hope the president doesn't say. what i hope doesn't do is politicize this tragedy. the way he could politicize this tragedy is to say pass cap-and- trade because of the spill. the reason why i'm against that is because what cap-and-trade basically does -- or i call ration and tax -- is it punishes coal consumption. net net, what the president is saying is because there is a oil spill in the gulf, we have to band coal production. how does it make us less dependent on foreign oil? how does it improve the everyday lives of americans to say let us not consume coal, let us pass cap-and-trade and somehow this will help the giant leak.

host: let us move on to memphis, on the line for democrats from new work -- caller: i think he should concentrate most on the cleanup. i think he people in the area -- we have to depend on the government. but i think we should get more involved in it. and i think that people should back him more instead of making him do more to work. they should come out and do a lot more themselves. host: a shot of the president in the "of the new york daily news." the admiral is behind him, who is in charge of the clinic. he will give the president a briefing today down in the gulf. he will then make a speech in pensacola. flyback to washington for the speech tonight. tom defrank, what he says is --

paris, illinois.

terry on theerepublican line. what should the president say? caller: thanks for letting me be on c-span. i've just got a few things. i think the president is doing a good job. i think he is doing what he can. it is a natural disaster that, when you get into simple problems, it takes professionals to get them done. and this is not a simple problem. i just think the president ought to say, we need to invent our way out of dependency. we can get carburetors to get five times of the gas mileage. or we can have an air impact system like an air impact wrench. you could have a bigger one to run a torque converter of a transmission. you will run a, pressure -- compressor instead of gasoline and have an air impact wrench to run the compressor to supply the air to the transmission to go

out to the tank and run that air right back to the front of the compressor and it would not even take a gallon of gas to go 500 miles because you only need gas to start the system. host: ideas from illinois. let us go to the independent line. brooklyn, new york. what should he say? caller: good morning. thank you. i'm a first-time caller, by the way. the thing i want to say is i think the president got bad science the information. he was told by the coast of response research center at university of manchester -- university of new hampshire, that using the dispersant as it comes up from the gusher is the lesser of two evils. there is a young man who is a native of louisiana out of tulane university, they looked

at where the oil with the this person had come into the marshland and it is almost impossible to get the stuff up. it is like crazy glue. host: what i looking forward to hearing? caller: that he is going to order as commander in chief of the epa to cease using that this person. the epa released on the website what is in the stuff. if you go to aep and.gov/bpsil pill -- if you've got 500 pounds of that stuff on the ground, it is a superfund site. that stuff should not be coming up. i don't like the birds, either. i wish he would tell us he will stop any of the controlled burns that put all of the toxic smoke in the air. and with the dispersants, it forces a toxic cloud above

ground that can come all the way where you are sittinn in washington journal. host: appreciate your comments. donald is standing by in detroit. thank you for waiting. what do you want to hear tonight? caller: i want to hear what he is going to do to stop the oil leak. it is an absolute catastrophe. not listening to the politicians on the other side, the right. because they are talking about keeping drilling and he wants to put a moratorium temporarily because you have an absolute catastrophe. it makes sense. they erred in not using cents, just playing politics. they want to drill right now. they are not worried about the jobs and the president is, too. he is not a stupid man. we have an absolute catastrophe. lives are at stake. not just talk about making money. talk about lives, animals, humans, tte economy, the wetlands, the marshes. everything. you take into account all of

this. and the american people watching. not talk about the tea bag or conservatives but the real american people are watching and they know that he is moving like a man possessed doing the best pecan and he is thinking. not just running around doing everything just to be doing it. he is trying to get it taken care of. host: here is one of the lead items and "usa today" this tuesday morning. most fear lasting damage. it is a pole. the lead says americans overwhelmingly view the oil spill as an economic and environmental catastrophe that will reverberate. you can see a couple of questions in the chart section. which comes closer to your view, the poll asks?

that is and "usa today." here is a short piece of what the president had to say in alabama. >> i can't promise folks here in theodore or across the gulf coast that the oil will be cleaned up overnight. it will not be. it is going to take time for things to return to normal. there is going to be harmful effects on many local businesses and it is going to be painful for a lot of folks. some folks are frustrated and some will be angry. but i promise you this, things are going to return to normal. this region that is known a lot of hardship will bounce back just as it has bounced back before. we will do everything we can, 24 schleswig 7, to insure the

committees get back on their /7. -- 24 shall la and we will leave the gulf coast in better shape than before. host: here is "the washington post." the lead story --

a lot more details and the story, which we can get to later. laura, what should the president said tonight? caller: what i would like to say. i am a republican but i truly believe both parties are at fault. i truly believe that both are all about big business. they sell us out. i feel like both parties, congress, everyone has been bought out. -- we are indebted to paying the prices when we have inventors who could probably send us around the world and back on no money at all. but they need to be about the american people and their inventors and ideas and quit buying of inventors so we the american people can be about driving our cars for no money at all. they could do that for the american people but they don't want to do that. it is about them and the money they want to make. thank you. host: lake park, florida. the line for democrats.

what should the president say? what do you want to hear? caller: i want the president and be positive and not like the health-care bill -- 60% or against it and he rammed it through. he needs to start doing what needs to be done now. host: which is? caller: he said we would start drilling in alaska. it cost about $3 a barrel like saudi arabia -- they are getting $3 a barrel and putting their money into outfits that want to kill us. this is stupid to say we stop drilling in the gulf. that is crazy. he wants to go to cap-and-trade and turn everything over to these idiots. it is unbelievable. i am a strong democrat, too, but he is running this country into the ground. not showing real leadership. but he has a chance to turn things around. a drill in alaska and do it safely.

host: here is the front page of "the times-picayune." if you look at "the guardian" out of the u.k., their big headline says bp faces $34 billion in fines. the story that came out yesterday, which we will talk to senator byron dorgan about later run the show.

judy, republican. what is on your mind? what to the present as a? caller: we have not had the best efforts. he should explain to the american people why he refused to let the dutch, ind. they offered a ship three days after this happened that could have sucked up 20,000 tons a day of this stuff before it reached our shores. he should explain why he has not suspended the jones act which would accept all the help that has been a offered to us. president bush did that when katrina happen and we had all of these countries helping us. he is doing nothing but protecting the unions and hurting our economy. he is only about picking winners and losers, who gets the pell grants and who has to take a long. the pell grant is free money, giving all of that to the historic black colleges, helping the black farmers and not the white farmers and he said he will pick the winners and

losers in this cap-and-trade. everything we make just about half have oil in it, whether it is prescription medicine, whether it is the furniture in your house. it is not just about moving your car down the road and the wake up. this president does not know what he is below. host: plenty more time for your calls in these next 20 or 25 minutes. i want to step away just for a couple of minutes and talk about the fbi's release this week of the files of the late senator ted kennedy who passed away last august. brian bender is a staff writer for "the boston globe." mr. bender, how big was this file on senator kennedy and what was the most surprising thing? >> what they released yesterday was about 2200 pages. that covers primarily 1961 through 1985. it is not the whole file. there is more to come. this was just the first release.

i guess the biggest surprise is probably just the sheer number and constant flurry of death threats against them, basically from the 1960's, from what we understand, until he died. lots of them were from anonymous people who wrote threatening letters but many of them or also considered more serious plots. for example, the fbi investigated reports that serb hands sir hand -- sirhan sirhan tried to hire someone to kill ted kennedy. the constant flurry. the guy who lived under the threat of violent death for most of his violent life. host: what other areas that the file talk about what to say? politics, if you could? guest: certainly you get a little bit more of a peek into the relationship within that

kennedy family, this political dynasty, and the fbi. kind of schizophrenic. on the one hand, joseph kennedy sr., the patriarch father, is quite friendly with j. edgar hoover, who is running the fbi with an iron fist basically for half a century. then you also see later on some friction between 10 kennedy and j. edgar hoover -- ted kennedy and j. edgar hoover. ted kennedy wanted him to testify in front of a committee, in one memo written by j. edgar hoover calling kennedy a dishonest man who can't be trusted. there are many, many more examples of a schizophrenic relationship. very cordial letters between kennedy and j. edgar hoover because at the same time we know that the fbi is tracking him when he is traveling to central and south america, accusing him of meeting with leftists, of

gathering intelligence the same time the fbi director is apparently his best friend. host: how does this process work, the fbi releasing files? does every public official had a file? guest: not every public official necessarily. but many of them do. basically the process worked where the boston globe -- and that understand a lot of other media outlets requested kennedy's file after his death under the freedom of information act. basically over the last six or eight months, the fbi has been reviewing the file, blacking out anything that might impinge on someone's privacy. also crossing out anything that might be national security information. they got ready a couple weeks ago to put this out there and

the last thing was really to consult with the kennedy family, which was given an opportunity to at least review it and raise and the objectives -- objections. from what i am stand a kennedy family did not raise objections but there were some privacy concerns raised by other people mentioned in the fire. host: is it unusual that a family would be allowed to take a look and have a say? guest: it is unusual. the fbi says it is not a common thing. but in the case of a very notorious and very well-known public figure like kennedy, they obviously took a special steps to make sure that the family got at least some say. because the issue here is not the privacy of ted kennedy. he is obviously gone. it is the argument that could be made that things in their could somehow embarrass the family member's better still living. but apparently as i said, from

what i understand, from rep of the kennedy family, they did not raise objections on privacy. there were others mentioned in the file that held up. host: his personal life -- anything to say there? guest: there is a lot of stuff in there about sort of rumors, unsubstantiated reports about everything from sex parties to plot by the mafia to kill ted kennedy as well as his other two brothers. yes, obviously there are some things more on the sensational side. the fbi insists that those reports were never cooperated. the whenever followed up on. but certainly conspiracy theorists and others will have a field day with this because there are things in theire that are mysteries. host: what is next in the

process? there might be more released? guest: the fbi says they are still poring through what is an virtue of who he was. there are more pages from other periods, perhaps earlier periods and perhaps more recent periods. in the coming months the will be additional documents released. host: thanks a lot for a time. guest: my pleasure. host: back to your calls on what the president should say tonight. times -- prime time, it o'clock a.m. eastern. he is expected to address the oil spill -- 8:00 eastern. roger on independent line. caller: i think the president should take responsibility for the damage along the shores. because as of the lady from tennessee just called in about, "the houston chronicle" reported

that as soon as three days after the oil spill, the dutch government and other foreign governments offered us equipment that could have cleaned up the oil that was spilled and obama ignored those offers. so, the damage we see is his fault and no one else's. host: bill is on the line from annapolis, maryland. democrat. caller: yes. excuse me. what i would like to say is that congress, the republican congress for six years did no oversight of virtually anything, especially the war. the oil industry and everything. host: take us o the president's speech. what would july can to say?

caller: oversight is the most important thing we have. the government overseeing these industries, to make sure they are doing right. now, the new wave and now is to decrease oversight. well, we just went through a financial disaster because of lack of oversight. we are going through this because of lack of oversight. the gulf war, lack of oversight. billions of dollars stolen from the u.s. -- the american people and the iraqi people, because i think $18 billion went over there. host: let us hear from melinda from buffalo, new york. republican. to the question, what should the president say? caller: i would like to hear the president may be encouraged congress, instead of stopping oil drilling and instead of putting moratorium forward, maybe encourage regulations that

make acoustic switches and other backup systems mandatory. we do need some regulation. but we don't need a complete government control of the oil industry. we don't only -- we certainly don't need a complete stop the oil drilling because until the demand is slow down. let's face it, the democrats and other people will call in and say oil-drilling needs to stop immediately, i doubt any of them walk or bike to work every single day of their lives to keep from using any oil. not to mention the fact that petroleum is used in lots of other products -- plastics, in some dish detergents that are alcohol-free, other oils used. until the demand stops or slows down, we are going to need a lot. why should we get it from countries who help fund terrorism? host: lots of editorials. this from "the daily news."

they write -- let us hear from ohio. john, and dependenn care caller:

thank you for taking my call. i have been listening to all the callers talking about how president obama should lift the moratorium and we should continue drilling. it would be political suicide for this president, while those pictures showing oil gushing from the thousands and thousands of barrels in the ocean, on and he would lift the moratorium. political suicide. and another thing. host: let me jump in. what specifically should he say about all of this? caller: well, he should address the nation and basically be honest like he was when he was standing in the rain and letting us know that this could be a catastrophe. he should be honest about what is going on because nothing he really says it is going to sway a lot of people because the oil was still gushing in the ocean.

he should just be honest about where this country needs to go with climate change. he needs to let them know that he is making changes mms anti will deal with the bp and little differently. but as far as lifting the moratorium, it is ironic. those people in the gulf states who are complaining, on the one hand bashing the federal government and bp but when nothing was happening in the ocean and everything was going pg, they were not talking about erecting this court that. they are to blame also. bobby jindal and all of the governors and mayors, they were walking lock, stock, and there'll with the oil companies and they are just the blame and now they are trying to blame the president. host: to david in maryland, just outside d.c. democrats line. caller: how are you doing today?

host: what you looking forward to? caller: the president to come out and hold his ground. he has been bashed by the left by the republicans, blaming him for this and that. he is just one man. it he has to come out and lay the groundwork of what is going on. what has he been doing the past couple of weeks or so, just to come out and let everyone know he is on top of things. he is only one man. he can do no more than what bobby jindal can do. you can't just blame obama. he did not create the oil spill. it so, i just want him to come out and make sure, just lay out the groundwork of what he has been doing. the other world leaders that he has been talking to, just to get a handle on what is going on. he has had a meeting with bp in the last couple of weeks and i want to hear what has been going on with him and bp and all of

that. the republicans cannot blame obama for this. you know? he is doing the best he can. this is all i have to say. host: review of the week -- yesterday and today the president in the gulf region. today oil company executives testify to in -- today at c-span 3. the president addresses the nation tonight at 8:00, and would carry it live. thursday bp say paul, hayward, -- bp's ceo, tony hayward will testify before congress. here is eugene washington in "the washington post."

, but no, florida.

richard, republican -- pompano. caller: i think it is going to be a speech in real leader would have given probably 45 days ago. he is like 45 days late. when he was down in the gulf he should have taken a news conference and let people asking questions so we can get real answers. thank you very much. host: applebaum of rights and "the post" that this is not obama's katrina.

south end, indiana. david, and upended. what about the speech? caller: first of all, if you will start parting ways and say you are democrat or republican, that is the wrong answer first of all. you've got to be an american first. as far as obama doing this or not doing this, saying the right thing not saying the wrong thing, the focus on the president is the wrong area to be in. this is a criminal investigation. if obama were to lift the moratorium like your caller said before, that would be political suicide. and as far as more is being fought 1 mile beneath the ocean -- the real war should be fought between the british government and the american government.

it is all about money. it is all about british investors -- not talking millions of dollars, we are talking billions of dollars in the gulf of mexico and the poor people of louisiana are being used like they were with hurricane katrina. the u.s. government and obama is not what the conversation should be right now, ok? the president will talk about bad, but not every president is going to talk about what is really going on the. host: let us hear from ray in fort worth, texas. democrat. what are you looking forward to hearing tonight? caller: i overheard a couple of conversation with people. a woman called in a minute ago talking about acoustic switch that she would like to see put on. but she said i did not want to see moratorium. the moratorium is, to begin with, all of the oil being

drilled out of the c will continue to come. they will not stop and the correct production. the only thing that would stop for a period of six months is drilling new holes. there are thousands and thousands of wells that will continue to go. but the moratorium allows our investigators to find out what happened down there out there in the gulf and it allows them to decide what needs to happen as far as policy going forward, whether we need acoustics witches or some other type of device to help protect our seas in a particular from these oil spills. so it is going to take a little while. it is not one of these things were you say i don't want a moratorium and have them figure out of three days what needs to be done. it is going to take a little time. one other thing, too. the skimmers that they were talking about. i heard thad allen saying in a three-foot seas or more, you cannot use those skimmers and

that is why these things are not being brought in because they cannot pick up anything if the sea has anything other than a clear surface. it has to be flat water. host: a couple more of your calls. the speech will be live and written about just about everywhere. here is a message via twitter on all of his -- here is the front page of "the baltimore sun." in 63 had-year-old saying bp is doing what it can, and he would buy bp gasoline. although today he is filling up at texaco. the headline of the store -- some customers may never return. the money section of "usa today" bp dividend cut looking likely now. shares sank 10% monday.

if you look at the business section of "the new york times" today, it says --

business section of "the new york times." ogden, kansas. norma, republican. caller: i personally think president obama is doing the best he can. i agree with this other guy. this is a criminal investigation. they should have made sure the reputation of british petroleum -- i heard over two a couple weeks ago that they had over 800 safety things against them and yet they were allowed to drill. i agree to the moratorium. quite frankly, i did not know there were that many down there. it is shocking. i have been praying for god to give people the knowledge to stop that. but, no, it is a criminal investigation. don't blame the present. blame the people who knew what had to be done and was not done,

the people who supposedly did not put all of the safety precautions when they were building that. the person who gave them%+ permission to go buy some of the rules and regulations that there was. and i agree with this man. i might be a republican but i am an american and i was born and raised in alabama. i love the southeast. and honestly it is a crying shame that some like this should happen all because of greed. thank you. host: ok. harold, last call from right here in washington, d.c., independent. what would you like the president to say? caller: i do not think there is very much the president can say that would satisfy some people short of saying that he is going to put on a pressure suit and drop down to the well and plug it himself.

i have been -- i heard about a half dozen addresses from the president, and regardless of what he says in the addresses that i hear on c-span, the popular media puts its own spin on it. then you have reaction is to media. i really don't think there is much the president can say. but the bottom line is that humans tested the limits of human capability. that old saying, your arms are too short to box with god, i think it's just weird up and it reminded us that there are some things that dealing with nature, we are just not equipped to handle. host: specifically coming up next we will talk to bp and legal liability. byron dorgan, democrat of north dakota on energy and natural

resources committee. be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in the wake of the gulf of mexico oil spill, a number of oil company ceo's will be on capitol hill testifying this week. this morning, we will hear from exxon, chevron, and shell oil. live coverage but -- begins at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. thursday, bp ceo told me he word will appear at a house oversight and investigations committee -- bp ceo tony hayward. and for more informational of gulf oil spill, visit our website c-span.org/oil spill.

tonight at 8:00 eastern, president obama will address the nation from the oval office on the gulf of mexico oil spill. this is his first of all office address. live coverage on the c-span networks, including c-span radio and c-span.org. >> this weekend on c-span2's "book tv," growing up among arabs and israelis. he chronicles -- and a chronicle of the most violent places on earth. and a novel that took him 30 years to publish -- "matter turn -- matterhorn." join us on twitter. more than 30,000 viewers already have. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: senator byron dorgan, senator from south dakota. what would you like to hear from the president? caller: i think he will get a pretty comprehensive review of what is happening. probably it will begin with what happened at the start of this and all the things that have been done by bp and the administration. i believe there are 17,500 national guard troops down there. about 5000 vessels on the water. a lot of efforts to deal with this. yet a mile under the water we've got oil continuing to gush. i think what the president will do is sort of lay out the case of everything being done to stop this, and that the same time, all that is being done to ppotect the coast line. host: the headlines talking about escrow funds coming. what kind of fund should there

be and how should it work? guest:%about a week ago i suggested we firm up a binding commitment from bp. we were at a hearing and i asked the justice department this question -- bp said it would cover all legitimate costs. i said, does it mean there is any requirement we do that? is there a binding commitment? and the answer is, no. all it is is the word from bp they will cover the cost. i think it is time to create a binding commitment. what i suggested is the justice department approach bp and say, all right, you say you will cover all the cost. let us put your name on the line and commit yourself to it for a binding commitment and move from there. the proposal last week was maybe $20 billion into an escrow fund. there are many different ways to begin the process. but bp is a company that earned

$6 billion net profit in the first quarter of this year, $17 billion net profit last year, 150 + billion dollars net profit in the last 10 years. so this is not a company that can't put the money necessary into some binding process that will -- they caused the leak, it was on their watch and they will pay for it. host: the phones for it senator dorgan, the numbers are at the bottom of the screen -- our guest is a member of the energy and natural resources committee and chairman of the democratic policy committee. there is talk about an escrow fund to establish something. then the administration of the fund. some independent entity deciding who gets what. is the present for that sort of thing? guest: i expect there probably is. but each offthese things sort of create its own precedent.

but the admiral allen indicated in a letter last week to abide by that you need to have transparency. what are you paying, what is the criteria, who is getting the money? no transparency at all. at the moment it is the word abide by saying they will cover legitimate costs, and then they pay some and turn some down and no one knows the criteria. i think it is time right now to decide -- lock this down and say to bp, you say you will cover costs. all right. put some money, whether an escrow fund or some other fund3 there is a judgment made about claims of people know where to submit claims, what the criteria might be and how the claims are paid. host: what is the mood of your colleagues? guest: pretty much of the american people. enormous frustration. this was not supposed to happen. this is a very complicated system to drill a mile below the surface of the water. and you go down several miles

more on the ocean bed to search for oil. but every single day we learn more. today the headline n the paper is bp didn't handle all the regulations, took short cuts and so on. the biggest frustration, of course, is this gusher keeps gushing. in many ways, it hardly should be called a spill. this is not a spill. this is a gusher that is enormously frustrating to everybody because i think everybody would like to stop it. but it has not been able to be stopped at this point. host: this is the headline -- the lead story of "the washington post." this is from a letter released by two house democrats leading disaster. gation of this of course, of the executives are

testiiying this week. several oil company folks and mr. hayward from bp on thursday. what the want to know from them? guest: i think following these issues, what happens on the drilling rig? where procedures followed, were in short cuts used? the first and most important thing is lives were lost. second, the drilling rig exploded. we now have the uncontrolled gusher of oil in the gulf, unbelievable ecological disaster. a criminal investigation underway. we were informed by the justice department is there will be many investigations. but the criminal investigation i think will get to the bottom of what happened. of the explosion? were short cuts implemented that could have prevented what happened? host: va, william. caller: good morning, senator dorgan.

guest: good morning. caller: ok, i just wanted to make some statements, due to the big gusher that we got instead of the little spill -- and it is a shame we can put a man into outer space, have a space station in outer space but we cannot plug in the gusher. but as far as the blame is concerned, you go back during the time in 1961, george halliburton started giving government contracts. north dakota cap on getting his contract and he changed his name to just halliburton co.. i think caliber and should be blamed in this also because their job was to views he meant to keep contaminants out of these wells. but halliburton made dick cheney ceo in 1966 and did cheney, just like i say, he has been all the way through from

the 1960's up until now, and he had a lot of closed door discussions with the big gas and oil companies. i'd still feel that some of the politicians are in the bed of these big oil companies and gas companies and a stop needs to be put to a. it is called corruption. guest: we had a hearing. halliburton was involved. trans ocean, bp. bp actually is the responsible party. although trans ocean was the company that was drilling. i believe halliburton was the company that was doing certain things on that raid. -- rig. i do not know exactly who the responsible parties. bp is ultimately responsible but an investigation will determine who did what in some great detail, largely because there is a criminal investigation. largely we will understand who did what.

host: republican for senator dorgan. good morning. caller: how are you all doing? i was wondering because i have been seeing how they have been trying to cap this well off and they have been using these types of methods to cap it off. i was wondering whyythey didn't do something -- just a simple procedure that you do to plug pipes off. if it is just one major league and they cut the pipe or it is square, i did not understand why they did not design some kind of gigantic what they call plumber's plug which basically has a pipe in the center and then it has thread on it and you basically squeeze robert to expand on the inside of the pipe and it will force it through the inside of the pipe -- and then just suck it all-out. host: we hear a lot of ideas from callers on this program. why didn't they do this or do that? what do you maae of the initial responses to this?

guest: i have had a lot of calls and probably in members -- members of congress saying, i know how to stop that. i put them all in touch with the key people in coast guard and elsewhere. you know, the one thing that people have not learned a great deal about is the president and admiral allen and others have called together the best people they can find, the best minds in the world. they are consulting with people from the north sea and all over the world who have done a deep water drilling. my guess is, have there been a solution that was obvious and simple, it would have long ago been in place. as you know, bp with a lot of fanfare deployed several different kinds of solution. this big container that they tried to put over the well and several -- top kill and top hat. none of it has worked. now they are gathering some of

the oil through the last attempt. but the caller raises an interesting question and he describes it in a way that i don't quite understand, but i am sure he does. i venture to say that virtually every idea that exist out there has been sent to those people who are trying to figure out is there another approach. that includes bp. but there is a group of scientists and others and people with great experience working on this full time. host: when was the last time he spoke to the present on this? guest: last week. host: what was the conversation like? guest: on a number of issues. but this came up. the president is doing everything he can. it is a fact that he didn't cause the leak and he can't go down and fix the leak. if this president knew how to stop that gusher, i guarantee it would be gone and done. but he like everybody else i'm sure is frustrated that 55 days later he is still continuing.

host: what does this mean for exploration into the future? guest: i know the president the gulf now. he has made it clear to all of us that there is not going to being anything that can be done that will not be done in order to address these issues. he is very concerned not just about obviously stopping the gusher, which is first and foremost, but also trying to address the problems that are now confronted by people. you have somebody at the end of the dock in a quiet little town in the gulf that has a fishing boat at the end of the gulf and it is not fishing. they've got to make a payment. how will they do that? those of the things that day to day that will really cause problems. i know the president is really -- that is why they aren't talking about five by creating an escrow fund. -- they are talkkng about bp creating an escrow fund. there are 10,000 wells drilled

in the gulf and outer continental shelf, a fact. this is not happened previously. this kind of disaster, catastrophe. i think this suggest a couple of things. number one, there is a difference between shallow water drilling in deep water. i asked the question, if this was an 250 feet of water, would this have been stopped? most experts tell me, yes, because it is not nearly as difficult to operate in shallow water than a mile under the surface with robots and so on. i think first what has happened is a moratorium. the president properly said that as hold things at the moment. that does not mean we will not continue to explore even in deep water, but it means that i don't think exploration will continue until there are very strength it -- stringent regulations and rules that will try to make certain this will not happen again. host: san antonio, where bill is on the independent line for

senator byron dorgan, democrat from north dakota. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been pro environmental for the last 10 or 20 years and against new drilling for a long time. been don't think bp has the total bad guy and this stuff especially with thad allen and the coast guard and the government -- i am confident they know what they are doing. the real villain as i say are the regulators. canada requires relief wells and we don't. more importantly, i think the mood of congress for the last 10 or 20 years has been less regulation, similar to what we just saw in the financial mess. and in terms of this, what is the mineral -- mms. i guess what i am asking is, if the president tonight should be stressing more in terms of

regulating and less and terms of bp being at fault. thank you very much. guest: i think we need both. bp is the responsible party. but the caller is absolutely right. it refers back to the financial meltdown. he is absolutely correct about that. and it wasn't just on the financial side, but interior in mms and elsewhere where regulators were supposed to be regulating. they were boasting about being willfully blind. it is unbelievable what happened in the last decade or so. and a result was in the financial area, we have virtual gambling going on in the highest levels of some financial institution. and in this area you had circumstance in the minerals management service where regulators were not doing their job. they were too close to the industry. .

caller: this whole thing is fishy. host: how, caller? caller: yes, this whole thing is fishy. with these o.j. simpson truck, the media ate him alive.

with michael jackson it was 24/7,,and the column all kinds of things. and now here we are. this company, from england somewhere, and they are -- and they let people video the dead birds, are making everybody scared to say anything -- you know? i'm just so upset at our media, and our congress. host: happy with the media or congress right now. guest: that was true even before this disaster in the gulf. people would come through the deepest depression and the greatest recession. i understand people are angry about some things. let me return to previous comment.

they in the administration started to address the regulatory peace quickly. they have been very active. they have remade the mms, supported the part that takes royalty funds from the part that regulates. the president has been very active. host: one earlier caller said that the president better not bring up energy tonight. that speech tonight, what is the correct node he could hit? guest: well, i don't quite understand the comment about energy legislation. i think the front wheel drive of that legislation will likely be some legislation probably necessary to respond to the gulf crisis. we also have passed a piece of leonardenergy legislation last ,

because of all the things we need to do as a country. things to make us less dependent on foreign oil. it is very important. maximize use of wind, solar energy -- build a system across the country so that you can move its from one center to other areas. all the things you do to have a low carbon future. if the reference was that they hope it does not bring up cap and trade, i don't support cap and trade, but having a lower carbon future. i would even support putting a price on carbon. the last thing i would want to do is provide a $1 trillion carbon securities market for the wall street people. i have had a bellyful of that, with what they do with trading and credit default swaps. making record profits on all sides of the transaction -- i am tired of that. i don't know exactly what the comment was about.

i do think this country can and should have a better energy policy. we have the start of that in a bipartisan bill we passed last year for the energy committee. host: how has the oil spill in the gulf affected the debate this year for energy legislation? guest: in the senate, all of the committee's have connection to writing legislation to address offshore drilling and things the money to be changed -- they have been asked to report by the fourth of july on the recommendations. to the extent there are recommendations to address this, that would be the front and to bring this to the floor. there are others in congress who would like to bring a climate change bill and at that. it would take 60 votes in the senate. i doubt whether those 60 votes

exist right now. but the energy bill itself will reduce carbon because it will maximize renewable energy and do things that are very important. host: our guest is retiring from the senate after three terms. we will talk with byron dorgan in a few moments about his future plans. right now we have nancy, a republican caller. caller: good morning. the oil spill has happened, but the most important thing is getting a clean up. mike huckabee had six or seven people on who had products that would clean it up. they even demonstrated. then the one person had a machine similar to what kevin costner has, but they said nobody would talk to them. the guy who had the machine --it was something about bubbles and it would take the oil and

separate it. said. bp was supposed to call them, but they didn't. i do not understand that. i'm tired of getting oil from other countries. we should still drove. -- we should still drill, definitely. guest: every opportunity that exists out there with new or existing products to clean up the spill should be used. there is a fellow from bismarck, north dakota with a fair number of patents and he has been in touch with me about a product he thinks would be helpful. i have put him in touch with people working on the oil spill. we should avail ourselves with everything out there to address this. my hope is that, obviously, first and foremost you have to try to shut down trygusher. everybody is trying to make sure that happens. but concur with that, try to

address the issue of keeping the oil from the shore. there are literally thousands and thousands of people working on the coast to try to do that. host: let's here from detroit now and maya. caller: [unintelligible] concerning vladimir britain. host: please start over. caller: [unintelligible] with the link between [unintelligible] and sinkholes? with putin behind this? host: did you get that?

guest: she is saying something about putin. some shortshortcuts were taken i don't think it has anything to do about putin. host: "the washington post" -- paying the bill for this bill. this concerns establishing an escrow fund, though bp has insisted repeatedly it will pay all claims against it. there is cause for doubt about this. caller: hi, i was thinking instead of capping it and if using that, they should have popped it up to the surface, connected a pipe inside another and connected it, and shot the

oil on to the surface and put it into barges. i think it would have gotten rid of all that oil they're dispersing all over. it is all under the sea and going everywhere. guest: the secretary of energy, a nobel prize seat --i have a lot of confidence in him. he is not in the business, but they have called experts from all around the world and to this. consulted with everybody. my expectation is that in every other idea has been considered because all of them want the samet thing thehey want this gusher stopped. host: here is a question for you, byron dorgan.

i watched the house of commons discussion -- guest: i have also indicated that bp is the responsible party. they have the least, were drilling the well, and contacted for it. there is a responsibility in other areas as well, but bp is the principal here. my understanding is that transition moved their headquarters to switzerland -- that transocean moved at headquarters to switzerland. the keep some people here, but the purpose of moving it overseas is to avoid paying u.s. taxes. in a meeting a week or so after the oil spill, the announced

theeone to pay a substantial dividend. i do not think that transocean or bp ought to be paying a dividend. one should be available for what will be large costs necessary to be covered by both companies. host: here is a deadline. here is this question from the viewer -- what does the center feel about the continued blasting of bp by the president and democrats, and the effect on stock plans? guest: i do not think it is blasting to describe the responsible party year. this is bp's well. you might want to use their front page of "the washington post" it began -- it is not only lawmakers accusing them of that. there are other stores.

shortcuts taken, regulations not follow. all this will come not from the criminal investigation. i wish that none of this had happened. if we're not involved, let me give you an example froo the exxon valdez situation -- they said it would cover the costs, but they fought for 20 years, and many of the people they owed were dead by then. host: here is another caller. caller: thank you, senator byron dorgan for taking my call today. another you represent the great state of north dakota. i would like to have some other senators from the gulf area on c-span. there are a couple of things i want to ask you. the first is, do you believe that the government was delayed

in the command and control structure of this response? host: stop you there. guest: the president was on this immediately, as was his cabinet. it took some while first to understand what was going on. first of all, the rig blew up, people were killed, and then obviously some sort of spill. but i think that the president moved as quickly as he could. caller: that said, the way it looks from the citizens' perspective is, it looks like the government has waited for the financial liability to bb determined before they stepped in and sent the coast guard, or national guard -- where is fema in all of this? guest: is the law, and on think that is the case. the coast guard was there almost immediately.

the president sent officers down there almost immediately, and was involved a day or two later. fema by the way is a federal agency that deals with the aftermath of the disaster. i know that fema is actively involved now, but would not have or so.nvolved in the first day host: baltimore, an independent caller. caller: i want to thank the senator for taking calls. this is a great format for average americans to speak to members of congress and other politicians. this oil spill -- and lived in maryland, but it affects me every day and i think about it all the time. my question, how much time do you think it will take, once the

fix the spill to clean the gulf, and what you think will happen as far as the minerals management service? minerals management? -- where? guest: we talked about that a little earlier. i think it is quite clear there is some responsibility there with the minerals management -- years there with a lack of responsibility. frankly, if someone had known how to stop it, by no would have been done. all the best minds of the world of them brought to bear, yet the gusher continues. i think the issue will be with us for years. we will have to be constantly

involved with the people of the gulf region. this will have a significant impact for a long, long time. i come from north dakota, all long ways from the gulf of mexico. by the way, we do produce a lot of oil, ranking fourth in the nation for production. it is on shore, obviously. we drill into what is called the the bachman shale -- a 100 ft seam, 10,000 feet below the surface. they drill a new well about every month, 1200 new wells every year. it is the most significant oil play in america right now. the agency that did the estimate in this it said there is up to 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil using today's technology. that is a very big part of our energy reserves. host: what happens with it?

pipelines, moved to refineries, and to markets from there. it is a very big oil play, the largest in the country at the moment. i don't know much about offshore drilling. i know a fair amount about the oil industry just because there is a lot going on in western north dakota. host: a couple of legal issues. robert gibbs says the administration is ready to take over the handling of oil spill damage claims from bp if the british company does not set up an independent entity to do it. he says the president has a legal authority to do this. then there is a lead editorial today -- read a little, then get your reaction. it is entitled "obama's political oil fund" -- in its gulf spill penick, the white house runs roughshod over the rule of law.

a criminal probe has been opened of this bill, usually kept under wraps to protect the innocent -- then came the president's suggestion that bp suspend its dividend, crucial to the retirement of thousands of shareholders. guest: well, the paper's editorial page does not change from day to day. the question is, should there be a circumstance abp says we will pay the cost, yet begin a process in which there is no transparency at all? no one knows whose claims are being honored. i think that tripp baird in his letter to bp was absolutely correct.

there needs to be transparent to. a week ago my feeling was that if the company says let's stand behind this, let's make a binding commitment, rather than just a promise. we have seen promises evaporate. it happened with exxon valdez. there many different ways to construct that. the president is recommending an approach. host: the president's speech at 8:00 p.m. tonight, and you can watch it on the c-span networks, radio, website, just after 8:00 p.m. kansas city, you are on. caller: thank you both. senator, you are one of my champions. first of all, there has to be more regulationn, firstly. and congress should pass a law that there is no new offshore drilling until there is some type of shut off valves and place. if we could go down to the

titanic, -- i just don't think the well-defined a solution in this place. the wait until after the disaster has happened. i hope that i'm wrong, but i think that bp will probably go bankrupt within a year and we will see all these stations boarded up. then how will the people get paid? will the government have to take up the bill, then? guest: that is the point. if bp does not pay this, the federal government or american taxpayers will be stuck with the bill. that is what it is important that a very large, successful company who has made a great deal of money -- now you put some of this aside on a binding commitment so that you do what you say you did. if not, american taxpayers will bbear this, and i don't think

they should bear the responsibility. caller: why is it only bp is responsible win transocean and halliburton are involved? guest: we just spoke to that. it will not just be bp -- that is why just said that transocean should not pay a $1 billion dividend. caller: my second point, if obama would have weighed this and let the other countries come in before the oil reached the shores, this would have made a big difference. all that i hear is to show me the money. everyone is worried about the money, not the land, the people. we have to start worrying about the shores.

host: that caller was from maryland. guest: i guess i was not sure about the ships she was referring to. the president and others have done all they can o reach out to people from around the world. norway has done lots of rilling in the north sea, a deepwater drilling. this administration has reached out to everyone to say that if you have ideas, expertise, bring them. so, i don't think we can be critical of their inability to reach out. they have been very aggressive. host: good morning. caller: my name is john white and teach marine engineering and worked on a marine simmering for 14 years. i believe the senate bill was correct.

this is not time to argue about legal things or money. it is a time to look for the solution to stop the leak, first. otherwise, the catastrophe, its effect will be damaging the environment much greater than now. i have a design that i sent to mr. tunney he word sometimes -- to mr. tony hayward several times, and to the white house, but i have had no rrsponse. i have a way to seal the pipe and recapped the oil, and use it to pay for the damages. this design is a very unique design and uses a submarine system to seal the pipes. if you are interested i will send you the design ensure you have to do it. host: thanks, john. guest: yes, would you send it to my office? i'm sure that if you sent it to

the folks working at the command center in the gulf, they have it. they have a group of people looking at all the ideas. they have thousands coming in the. feel free to send it to my office today. call my office and they will give you the facts of this. i will get it and get it to the people in the inner circle, the scientists and others trying to figure out what to do. i met the the morning with one of the top scientists who has been working for 50 plus days continually. host: down to our last five minutes a couple of other issues i want to get in while we have time -- the house senate conference is under way. there is this headline -- derivatives sell-ofspinoff plans support. what is the latest?

guest: i hope that the final product is a strong product. what happens to run the country's system into the ditch is the most unbelievable greed. we will read about this. remember when we read all about the 1920's, and the time. before? we will read about this last decade and have in history books for a long time. we saw some of the biggest financial firms in the country engaged in flat out gambling with taxpayers' money. it needs to be shut down. i think if you are too big to fail, and your failure causes, would cause damage to the entire economy of the u.s., moral hazard to the country, then you are too big. we ought to pare that back. swaps that are soocalled naked,

why are we allowing that to continue, to have banks trading3 if this conference does not condone something strong, they will have shortchanged the american people. host: we're talking about jobless benefits, extension of some tax breaks, the medicaid payments to doctors -- stalled, the whole thing, over upset. how do you see that playing out? guest: in a few minutes i will be at the democratic leadership meeting tuesday morning. we need to get this tough piece of legislation done the right way. host: good morning. caller: it is a pleasure speaking with you guys. i have a couple of issues to raise at this time. my main concern, this oil spill

in the gulf -- it seems like there is no accountability. it seems like these people are going to bail out with the bankruptcy or something like that and not be accountable. i see the commercials. it is generous, heartfelt, but at the same time, the actions concerning the matter are not the same. it does not exhibit the same behavior as when they come on tv and say that they apologize. it is all well, but it will not stop or help those affected by the oil spill. host: final thoughts? guest: it is a disaster, the most significant ecological, environmental disaster of our lifetime, and we will live with the consequences for a long, long time. first, stop the gusher, #two,

make sure there are tough, tight regulations in the future. and let's learn from it, from the financial collapse. all these things. let's understand that the free market works, but it is also a circumstance where you need a referee with a whistle and a striped shirt who calls the fouls. when the free-market system needs to have the calls on fells and regulation, we need to be there to do that. host: one final thought about yourself. so, you are retiring this year guest: yes, it is a great gift to do this, has been a great privilege to serve in my life, but after 30 years, were to do some other things. i have written two books and plan to write a couple more. probably do some teaching. beyond that, i'm not sure. as i said, it is a great gift serving in the congress, but three decades for me was about the right amount of time. i want to go want to do some other things.

host: thank you, byron dorgan. we will take a short time out. our guest will be tripp baird of the heritage action for america. he is the director of senate relations. ♪ >> ceo's from several of the

companies will appear this morning. on thursday tony hayward will appear before the house subcommittee on oversight and investigations. we will have live coverage. for more information, visit our web site, c-span.org/oilspill. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, president obama will address the nation from the oval office and the gulf -- on the gulf of mexico owes bill. live coverage on the c-span networks, including c-span radio and c-span.org. >> the second one is to continue to press the [unintelligible] of the industry to give access to new supplies of the world. that is drilling wells and 10 kilometers into the gulf of mexico, beginning to explore

underneath the ice in the arctic. that is before the gulf oil spill this past january. this thursday he will testify. see what others have said with more than 100 hearings, briefings, and programs, all archived. it is washington, your way. "washington journal" continues. host: at the table, tripp baird. as the house and senate conferees continue their work, what kind of bill do you see taking shape? what concerns you? guest: the whole bill. where to start? we can get to what is in it, but what is not in it is most concerning. nothing deals with the government sponsored enterprises, fannie and freddie,

making up half of the primary mortgage market and a good chunk of the secondary market. these two enterprises that taxpayers have dumped money that dwarfs all other bailouts. that is troubling, them not dealing with that issue. you see expansion every day of lending products from freddie -- one where 105% of your home you get credit for. they are not retrenching. they are growing. host: why is that not in the bill? guest: it is a good question. you have to ask barney frank of the democrats. we can blame a lot of things on bush, but this with gse's is not one of them. he was calling for that a number

of yeers ago. it is not like members of congress did not see this coming. fannie and freddie were in trouble long ago. the too big to fail contracts when it comes out of a push for reform for those two entities -- it does come from these. you have something government sponsored, agreed to buy mortgages from banks and package -pthem and resell them as mortgage-backed securities. it had a lot to do with the housing collapse. host: something likely in the bill as talked about in "the washington post" today, described as a derivatives spinoff plan, gaining support. banks would be forced to spin off their derivatives. the plan seems to be gaining it is championed by centerized.- blanche lincoln. it had been opposed by the administration.

some lawmakers in both parties, multiple banking regulators and wall street, but appears to be gaining support. your reaction? guest: derivatives swaps are very complicated. i never worked on wall street. i never worked on the house financial services or banking committee. i never dealt with these issues, but neither have the large majority of congressional members who will be voting on this, nor the president. i have followed it closely and the past two years. not all swaps are bad. not all hedging is bad. here you have a political situation meeting of policy situation. the well so poisoned for swaps and derivatives now simply because the credit default swaps were such a driving force behind a lot of the bad subprime mortgages which back the those financial products.

here you have it spinning off basically meaning, senator blanche lincoln of arkansas pushing for it, taking a company like j.p. morgan in cutting off their swap desk and making them recapitalize somewhere else. that will cost some of these companies billions, some of their most lucrative businesses. companies like goldman sachs would be greatly affected. america basically has a corner on the market with swaps and derivatives with about 97% of the market. there are many foreign banks like the royal bank of scotland salivating at that prospect of them americans giving away their market share. leave it to congress to make a mistake and do this.

host: the phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen for our guests, at one time or legislative director for a republican congressional member from florida. he is the director of senate dilutions of heritage action for america. how is that related to the heritage foundation? guest: the heritage foundation has been a 5013c for more than 35 years, a conservative think+ tank mainly focused on limited government, a free economy. things like that, strong national defense. through the years we have been limited to what we could do on capitol hill, having a certain tax exemption. from the healthcare bill with so many groups on the left from unions to environmental groups coalesce around the healthcare bill. we sell a bill that was wildly

popular in the real world, but in washington and had a great following -- it was wildly unpopular in the real world. our members are growing every day. they pushed us to get engaged in a more concrete way. we have begun a c4, calling it "heritage action for america." we can lobby, put up ads, the pressure on members of like never before. host: you mentioned barney frank. you mentioned chris dodd. what you make of their work? guest: it has been a long time coming. the house bill was done several months ago. the senate bill has some starts and fits, and finally got over the finish line, took a lot of wrangling and the senate, but got it done. people must remember that3 senate.

in the senate you basically have to have 60 votes to pass anything controversial. they did that. the conference, conferees -- the house and senate bills must be reconciled. they are starting that process, last week thursday. there will begin today at 11:00 a.m. the house gets to run the conference. they switch back and forth. barney frank will be the chairman of the conference. they have to push the bill through by the fourth of july. host: they started late this morning and we will be there again today. connecticut tripp baird, first call, from the independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to say that if our legislators remember that we

are republic and our constitution is document the should have adhered to, instead of being run by parties -- we were never meant to be run by a democrat and republican parties. we were supposed tooadhere to the constitution. remember that we are republic, not a democracy. all of the deregulation that came into play -- this can be squarely laid on the shoulders of who runs this country and congress, legislators. host: the problem with the parties, legislators, people running the country. guest: it is interesting, when you poll financial regulatory reform -- six months ago, one year ago when the crisis was in full bloom democrats had a major issue when you looked at wall street and main street. but the numbers show it is not a

slam dunk. people care more about terrorism, the economy, jobs. if you think this bill will create jobs, you are misinformed. the bill is up to 1900 pages now. at the end of the day will be as large as the healthcare bill, maybe 10 members of the entire congress have read it. probably -- and members will vote not knowing all the stuff tucked in during the conference negotiations. american people understand when you look at the polling that congress has showsome of the bl, certainly wall street does also. do you believe members of congress or washington can fix the problem and then the polling gets even worse. host: david, a democratic

caller, from washington. caller: yes, west richland, washington. this guy is another type from wall street. all they want to do is confiscate everything. i'm an engineer. i'm getting so disgusted that i cannot talk. sorry, bye. guest: [laughter] i have never worked on wall street, worked for a bank, nothing like that. i believe in free markets. i believe that the more you regulate capital, it will go somewhere else. i think that demagoguing all of wall street, people who give credit, is a bad thing. this world it runs on credit. businesses run on credit. families run on credit. when you create more obstacles

that access the credit, the price will go up. money is like any other service or product. you have to charge a price for it and assess the person you're lending to, and set some type of risk. if you take that away from banks and from other institutions, and let the government decide winners and losers, or who gets credit for how much, you're going down the wrong track. that is where this bill intends us to go. host: more on the detail of the bill -- from the paper, giving in on trading, bankers now aim to cut other losses. the bankers have given up on defeating one of the most contentious provisions in the bill to bar federally insured banks from trading for their own accounts. can you explain that part for us? guest: i did not follow that part of the bill that closet. there trying to stop banks to take depositors' money and trade on that.

they want -- they call it the volcker rule, talking about strengthening it, stopping banks from breaking, making banks break off their proprietary trading and not use the depositors' money, but just the profits from their trading desks only. the feeling is they don't want them to risk money of depositors, or federally insured money into the market. host: the article also points out that despite traction on the blanche lincoln amendment that bankers will tristill try to stp the. today at the conference, a variety of other issues. we will address other flashpoints of the banks in coming weeks. is there anything on those topics you want to talk about?

guest: the interchange fees is an interesting dynamic. you are assessed a fee every time you swipe your credit card or debit card. it does not show up. the effort is to stop that. what you are paying for and what people need to understand every time they get a card --your pain for the convenience of having that piece of plastic with the bar code that enables you to not have to carry cash. congress is try to limit what they can charge. it would be like telling a hotel person that you cannot charge more during spring break. you have to charge a winter rate. basically, they're dictating that if you do not like the credit card, you don't have to use it. what i have a problem with is a washington dictating to people

dictatingfees, services, and products they can and cannot offer. host: devon is on the line from a town called howard in pennsylvania, a republican. caller: we look at all these problems and what would happen. realistically we can distillate to one word -- greed. people in our country have nothing but grief. that is why all this stuff is happening. we're losing touch with our country. we're not like we used to be. -- nothing but greed. host: one word, greed, he says. guest: i think of the words of gordon gecko -- i don't know if

greed is good. people shorting in speculating, these are people who are not your common people. i think we will find after all this is said and done that there were not a whole lot of laws broken. [unintelligible] there's a lot in the bill that had nothing to do with this crisis. there are small-town the stoma lenders, committee bank credit cards. you have russell simmons on the hill llbbying because he has a store card for poor people that will be taken away or severely limited. many people had nothing to do with this crisis, and to call them greedy is a misrepresentation. there are people on the upper

end of the scale and made a lot of money that certainly did -- they certainly were greedy, and of this would last forever. the too big to fail mantra is not dealt with correctly in the bill. there is nothing in here to stop the treasury or fed or president from coming in, bailing out these companies again. what is great about an economy where gritty people can live is when you get greedy, you pay a price if you bet wrong. there was not a price paid. we built in an incentive going back decades to the clinton era. we bill that mexico. these banks know that the federal government will back them up now. whether you have resolution authorityyor not, it will still cost a lot of money to wind down some of these big banks. do you really think a president or obama, read any president

will point out -- bank of america who has millions of account holders, and say you are too big to fail, we will wind you down? do you think politically he will actually do that? i doubt it. i think a lot of these provisions are typical washington bluster and will never happen. it does not teach market discipline. the beauty of our economy is you have the right to succeed, but also the right to fail. if you fail, you should pay a price. host: utah, peter, an independent caller. caller: good morning. [unintelligible] i was writing it president obama about there being less restrictive requirements for the business industry. there was no one there to answer

my proposal. [inaudible] [unintelligible] there is no way for me to start because the lending community cannot give me any loans because of my employment, which is why we moved. host: did you have a question? caller: we need to have legislation for lending services. the banks will have less restrictive requirements for first-time borrowers to start a small business. there is a good, driving

business in the philippines. guest: it sounds like he is having trouble getting a loan. people have to understand how the banking system works. i am not an expert, but banks have banks and large banks go to the fed. on it down to this gentleman on the phone who wants a loan from the committee bank. in the market, just as you saw in the credit-card bill that passed last year, people on the margins like yourself will be too risky to lend to. one of the problems you had, certainly in the mortgage underwriting standards. i hate to say this and be the bearer of bad news, but not everyone has the right to a loan or mortgage. it is not an entitlement. if you have bad credit, or mark on your credit, you have to clean it up. otherwise, banks should not be incentivized to lend to people who are too risky. how long have you had your job?

what is your credit score? how much debt are you holding? the you have any other sources of income? these basic underwriting standards were completely ignored during the swinging 1990's and early 2000's during the housing boom, and then bust. congress incentivized banks to do bad lending practices. that is what led to a lot of this, not all of it. certainly there were other things that contributed. but that was certainly one part of it. if freddie and fannie told banks, we are not going to take these kinds of loans and a bundle and securitized them and sell them to institutional investors, they would stop those kinds of loans. they did not do that. they encouraged weaker and weaker underwriting standards that led to a lot of these subprime mortgage debacles.

host: what is the impact on the economy at large? guest: in every piece of legislation like this -- as big as the 1933 act, certainly no one alive today have seen their regulatory reform bill this large. there are always unintended consequences in all big legislation like this. one will be the gentleman who just called, on the main street side. small businesses will be affected. people with credit cards, people like russell simmons who represents poor people. the irony is that people like the senate for responsible lending, people who claim to be looking out for the poor, they don't look at access to credit as one of the things. they simply want to get rid of pay loans and other products, or

whoever they think has a high apr. apr is always a bad way to judge products of shorter maturities. the real impact of the bill will be on main street, people at the bottom end. i think that wall street has built in all of this regulation and to their costs and will conduct business as usual. i think it will go around these regulations. there is a cut off at $50 billion, then it will open another company. they are smart people, and there's a reason they are on wall street and make a lot of money. they're smart and know how to get around regulation or work within a framework like this. host: for the last several minutes, ian has been waiting patiently on the democrats' line. caller: hello. i cannot believe your coming on

here and telling everybody -- just blanket-bashing everything the government does, the obama administration is doing after we have had eight years of literal destruction of our government under george bush and republicans. they accused of bombing and the democratic congress of everything they did exactly when they were in office and in power. to have people like governor request on your show, c-span, is disgusting. to allow people not to call on your show is even more disgusting. what these propaganda groups like the heritage foundation on the right in the spinoff like this guy, the heritage would ever -- they are the worst of the worst. they want the best of all of europe to get away and make a free country because of taxation without representation. guest: no blanket statement there from you're caller. like he said, this is a free country and heritage has as much

right to have a voice here and be as active as we want to representative government. there is nothing wrong with us or grover norquist or anyone else getting appear and telling what we believe. if you don't like it, come up here and lobby your member of congress or whoever you want. write letters. get active. but you think on one thing -- we will be active, and we think we have the right ideas for common sense government. ww think expanding government and controlling our economy from washington is the opposite thing we ought o be doing. the people who make money out there, people who drive our economy, the risk takers, entrepreneurs -- those people are the ones we represent, not a bunch of bureaucrats, faceless bureaucrats in an agency who have never worked in the finance sector, never worked in the bank, who don't know zip about how the economy really works. we will give the authority to

these kind of people to make decisions that you as an individual should be making. if you want to get a pay day loan, get one. if you want a mortgage, and your credit is not good enough, get your credit good enough, get a job. make yourself ready for a mortgage. it should not be up to some bureaucrat to make the decision for you. in essence, i am fighting for you, buddy. we will stick around here. host: you can look at the website of the organization. tripp baird is a native of florida -- guest: pensacola. host: the next phone call comes from jay, a republican. caller: yes, daytona beach, florida. thanks for exercising your fifth

amendment right. just like the last caller, this is a visceral reaction we're getting any time a challenge will happen in the federal government as far as controlling what we do as citizens, it seems the democratic side gets extremely angry and agitated, and mad when we bring up the true issues. one of the biggest things i want to know about and this financial regulatory bill, why is there no addressing the fannie and freddie situation? business as usual with that. why is that not been regulated, been left completely out instead? guest: it is a great question. i think everyone around washington is scratching their head. we all know the reason. fannie and freddie have been a democratic stronghold from day one. barney frank has been their best friend forever.

you can look as far as the senate banking committee, chris dodd. these are the biggest supporters. i used to lobby in the old days. we'll look at a public on how to lobby, and fannie and freddie were lobbying 101. they gave money to everybody, supported everybody, funded through their foundation every mom and pop 5k walk from here to california. they were as politically collected as any company ever, and the degree job and shoving a lot of what they did and did not do. they continue to have support. the irony is, they have that much sway for they have literally shield themselves -- most people, any fair minded person would say certainly had a part to play in the crisis, if not a very large part to play, yet they have escaped regulation here. that taxpayers continue to build amount -- privatize them.

one not? what would that be a controversial thing? certainly, the secondary mortgage markets still needed. host: our guest has been tripp baird, director of senate relations for heritage action. our plan is to take a break, go to the floor of the house where they're doing the morning hour for the make speeches on any topic they would like. we think it will be fairly brief. we will be back with more of the journal and a discussion of health care. der. the chair lays before the house a counication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's ros, washington, d.c. june 15, 2010. i hereby appoint the honorable kathleen a. dahlkemper to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2009the chair will now recognize meers fr lists submitted by

the majority and minority leers for morning hour debate. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares th house in recess until 10:00 a.m. today. host: among the items for the house this afternoon include a small business lending in build. this program will continue until 10:00 a.m. when the house comes in.

we will have a discussion of health care coming up in about 15 minutes or so. our guest will be neera tanden, chief operating officer from the center for american progress. in the meantime, we will open the phones for you to talk about any topic that you like. we will have those numbers on the bottom of the screen for you in just a second. but some articles in the meantime, money and investing section, "wall street journal." they are talking about this financial overhaul bill and they are right --

there is a lot more detail here in this piece, but the headline

says it all, "lobbyists cannot get in the door." will cover more on this later today for you. open phones now. from new york, thank you for waiting, it is: on the independent line. -- is glenn on the independent line. caller: i would like to see some of these talking heads that they have on these new stations -- host: like who? caller: like rachel maddow, o'reilly, maybe keith olbermann who could ask them about their stance on these things. the other thing i would like to see is the experts, the green people, the tree huggers here, i would like to hear what they

think is going to take to change over to some of these energy bills. unlike when mills, and neil cavuto had a guy on the was a -- like windmills, neil cavuto had a guy on the was a numbers cruncher and when he added them up, it was pretty terrible. for instance, it just the land it takes to put windmills on to generate enough power to take over on the coal fire energy. he said to take over one nuclear plant or one -- or a couple of coal-fired plants, you would have to have the space of rhode island. these are things that we should do, but it is going to take 25 to 50 years to do these things. host: the opinions of: on which it appen with the legislation in the country. -- the opinions of glen.

we also have mike. what would you like to talk about? caller: i want to talk about two subjects, and don't you cut me off because i know in the past when people bring up these two subjects, you limit their conversation. and the subjects are [unintelligible] and when someone has the opinion against israel. don't you shut me off. i want to know why as americans we have billions of dollars and we still do not control our borders. is this because they want to replace the americans with mexican workers? host: what is the way to control the border? you you caller: is, drafted

means like every other -- caller: you use, a trusted means like every other nation. the unmanaged and line it. but let me get on to israel. [unintelligible] i wish you would have more conversation, pros and cons, because you would have people that allow them to speak. israel is an out of control country. host: viewpoint of mike there from yucca, california. my hands were not on the button mike. next we go to paul. i was on your mind?

caller: i would like to tell you that the federal reserve is a private banking and we are run by the banking system. everything the politicians do is to protect the bankers. just like chris dodd passing a new law that will help the large banks, but not the small banks. they will go out of business and we will have just a few banks. the federal reserve is a private institution. the meltdown, barney frank and chris dodd and obama, who are run by the banking and are told what to do and just put it into law. i think that is the problem and it is hard to get away. host: while we wait for health care guest to arrive, we will let you know a little bit about what our guest will talk about. neera tanden is the chief operating officer for the center for american of progress, also

former adviser, for secretary kathleen sebelius. the topics will be the immediate effect of the new health caae law. we will continue to take your calls, though, on any topics in just a second. a couple of other articles here, a deal said on campaign spending bill. it says the house could vote this week on a measure that could exempt the nra. also in the post, an aviator might be the next leader of the u.s. marine corps. in a major break with

tradition, defense secretary gates is planning to recommend that the president selects an aviator as the next commandant of the marine corps. dallas, texas, thank you for waiting, donald, independent collar. c -- aller. caller: the previous two callers were good callers, a pretty spot on. to the guy that did not want to get hung up on for talking about the censored topics, one of them being israel, i have seen that happen before. but let me tell the caller, the true topic that you will not discuss and hang up on people

for his canvas. cannabis will fix everything. every time we talk about oil gushing of the ocean, the oceans are turning to blood, and an environmental replacement for oil is there and we are not talking about it. host: well, you just did, donald. june on fordham -- democrats. -- on the line for democrats. caller: i was just discussing the bp thing last night and not the prime minister, but someone was up there saying that we cannot aggravate too much of this because bp product out, amoco. but they also brought out and on. -- enron.

i am wondering now how we could possibly trust bp. because the banks were throwing money at enronxd. how they got control of pg&e out there in california i will never know. quite frequently, the whole last month here, it was just a farce. but there is someone who was on facing florida here, and his corporation -- i think he has recently retired from, but he started it 30 years ago. and it is called international oil spill control corporation. he has been doing this for 30 years and he says bp says this is the largest find it anywhere. it is not millions of barrels,

but billions of barrels and billions upon billions of dollars of profit. they do not want to worry about cleaning up any mess. they're just trying to get the oil out. they have not asked him to help out at all. he put a letter on the internet, i saw last week that he was going to mosey on to louisiana to see if he could help stop at all. i wonder if he was able to do anything. host: june, thank you for calling in. there is a hearing today coming up in about 15 minutes ago -- 15 minutes from now on c-span3 and it is on the several of the world leaders. the topic will be energy policy -- several of the oil leaders. the topic will be energy policy. look for that on c-span3, and

then tonight there will be the president. he is in the gulf now and will be in pensacola this afternoon. he will address the gulf oil spill live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the c-span networks. one of our tv channels, pending the house and senate schedule, but also at c-span.org. good morning, virginia. caller: i have a question that has never been asked and i have never seen it anywhere, having some panel people on discussing the amount of pollution and he that comes our of any given jet engine -- comes out of any given jet engine, it would be interesting to see how much heat is being generated by the aircraft. that is the only comment i have

this morning. thank you. host: 1 other programming note, tony alward, the bp -- tony kaye word, the bp head of the company, this hearing will take place thursday at 10:00 a.m. eastern time, also on c-span3. a broad look at the events this week that we are covering. yesterday and today, the president was in the gulf. today, the oil executives testified, and bp executives meet with the president of the white house on wednesday. and then thursday, the bp ceo tony in worhayword will meet wie president. hello, rick, good morning. caller: do you know what the

status is of the expense that the congress has opposed to have voted on? host: they're working on it in the senate, from what we understand, and they may spend the rest of the week on the particular bill. they're having issues getting final action on this thing. caller: this has major problems, for me, not so much in terms of seeking and finding employment, but in terms of the fluidity of benefits, for example, i had to wait eight months one time for one extension, three months on about three occasions, and [unintelligible]

on propofol for five different occasions. -- bond probably four or five different occasions. no telling how many people have lost their homes, their vehicles in the form of repossession because of not receiving these benefits. host: if you want to keep following the action, wash the senate this afternoon and through the rest of the week on this bill. i'm not sure if they have quite 60 votes to move it forward yet. indeed -- the "new york times" writes about this if you want to read more. they write that since june 1 when federal benefits began to expire, an estimated 325,000 jobless workers have been cut off.

the times finishes its editorial this way -- next call, manchester, conn., david, a democrat, good morning. caller: i am holding in my hand a styrofoam cup, and i only

mention the code to illustrate that it is tapered. that is to say, smaller of the bottom then it is at the top. if this -- if a service order of a tapered end on a, you could put it inside -- and by the way, and work with fluid in relation to jet boats and ships all the time. if you were to put that tapered end, from the surface and put it into the 21 inch diameter tube, eventually if you put it in two or 3 inches, it will seal. if you took a star from cut and put into a regular lives, it would seal. keep in mind, the resistance would be difficult, but the resistance would flow up the

pipe with the tapered end on it. you have ideas like this and you just cannot get them out. to be able to do this, somebody will be listening and say, he is right. we should have a tapered and on the pipe and put it into the 21 inch diameter. host: thank you. and here are a couple of pieces from "the wall street journal." this one after winning the nevada primary next -- this month. so, she is facing harry reid. insurgents take to the a establishment. she will be in washington for meetings today and including the tuesday caucus meeting. also, the house is investigating eight members.

and you can read more in the "wall street journal." one more phone call, republican, dave, welcome to the show. caller: i wonder who is doing your booking because this is the third day in a row that you have had someone from a progressive organization there in washington. you are taking a hard left. host: who would you like to see

on the program? caller: well, this is the third dayythat you have had a progressive and it is a little bit of overkill. it is a little bit out of balance. cand sure you have someone who s more than just a progressive. host: did you watch ourrlast segment was trek -- with a trip baird? caller: yes, but this is the third day in a row. you have got to spread your wings a little bit. maybe i am wrong. host: we've got a point. we will take a short break and be back with neera tanden from the center for american progress. t([captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

this -- >> this weekend on c- span2 bill t.d., -- "book tv" -- schedule and booktv.org and find us on twitter. okx5>> the continue to press te frontiers of the industry to give access to new supplies to

the world. that is, drilling wells to 10 kilometers in the deepwater gulf of mexico, it is beginning to export under the ice in the arctic. >> vp ceo tony hayword this past january before the oil spill. see what other government officials have said about this spill with programs all archived, in c-span's video library. >> we have got three new c-span books for you, "abraham lincoln," "the supreme court," and "who's buried in grant's tomb?" /books. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: our guest is the chief operating officer for the center of american progress, neera tanden. we ask you to come on and explain what might bejf the immediate benefit of the health care law. what should people know? guest: there are a variety of things happening. it comes into play in two phases. first, there are the immediate benefits that include insurance regulations, and in the ticket, benefits for particular populations. -- and in particular, benefits for particular populations. çv'ñie1ñiand benefits extended e numbers of peoples. first and foremost, there are a variety of benefits that are kicking in for people who do not have insurance. there are these things called state high risk pools, which are to provide coverage to people who are the most difficult to cover, the people who are the

most expensive and cannot find coverage. that works to create particular pools for people who have pre- get insurance. the congressional budget office figures that will cover about 2 million people. if will not cover everybody, but a few. there are some insurance regulations that will be kicking in over the next several months, dealing with pre-existing conditions, children and others. also, annual limits, lifetime limits, those sorts of things. in addition kora, a big step wie held for people who are seniors, facing the doughnut hole. right now, there are senior to do not have prescription drug coverage after a certain amount.

they will receive two wondered $50 from the federal government to help pay for those -- $250 from the federal government to help pay for those costs. those are some of the immediate benefits. and part of what is so exciting about health care implementation right now. host: to put the phone numbers on the screen for our guests neera tanden will be with us for about 30, 35 minutes before the house comes into session. republicans, independents, democrats, separate lines for all of you. we're talking about the immediate impact, or benefits of the new health care law. to know it darkly what is coming right now -- to note exactly what is coming right now? guest: there is a website www. healthreform.gov that wilcox provide you with -- that will

provide you with information. also, kaiser has a great website and a lot of folks consider that a great use source. -- resources. there have been immediate benefits just in the past several weeks. host: first phone call, gerald, a democrat, good morning. caller: i have a question for the lady. the first, i would like to make a quick statement. the gentleman who called about you having all progressives on there, he evidently did not watch a week and a half ago when you had all republicans. why don't you keep a tally end let us know how much for each one? now forw3 the lady, everyone is saying that we are forcing them to get insurance.

the thing is, if you do not have insurance, we are forced to pay it. why don't we repeal the law where if someone does not want to participate and they get in an accident and it is not their fault, then they either have the cash to pay or deal with their own medical. i'm tired of this. by the way, i may vietnam veteran and you all keep up the great work. -- i am a vietnam veteran and pewaukee but the great work. guest: right now, there are roles if someone gets very sick and is in the hospital, the hospital has to take care of them. it is not that people do not receive care. they receive care in a very inefficient and inexpensive way. one of the reasons why the president proposed the health care plan and that is one of the big issues that we're trying to address. we want to ensure that we are

covering everybody so that they're going to the doctor when they get sick instead of going to the hospital. when people o to the emergency room, that is when the medical care is for them, that is the most expensive care and we all end up paying for it. there are various studies that show there are all over a thousand dollars in costs for each family because of the cost of this care. we are trying to drive down that caused by ensuring that everyone has coverage. host: the next from galt is on the independent line, good morning. -- the next call is on the independent line, good morning. caller: will we have to have government health care? because uc commodified pay for my own health care. i was just wondering, what are

the shortfalls? you have some that can afford it, but not all of it. host: what does the law say for those who have insurance and -- do not have insurance, but have jobs? guest: this is one that touches every american. this is an extremely important point. a lot of big businesses provide coverage. the vast majority of large businesses provide coverage, but many small businesses cannot afford it. they would love to offer it, the legislation basically specifies that for small businesses that do not cover, there will be small business tax credits so they can better afford to provide coverage. but if an employer does not provide coverage to you, when the legislation is fully enacted, which will take a few years, it will specify that you,

yourself, can get tax credits to help you purchase insurance. and you can choose the option that is best for you. you will receive subsidies, tax credits, up from the government to help you pay for insurance. we know that one of the biggest reasons people do not have health insurance is that they cannot afford it. host: new rules issued on health insurance -- they have a shot of the president here in a joint session of congress. something called grandfather in with these new rules. can you explain that? guest: that is with the regulations are round of what counts in making a new policy. to step back for a second, the legislation specifies certain regulations within the insurance market.

they're maintaining they were not affected byysome of these roles if you already have coverage. the regulations -- some of these rules if you already have coverage. the regulations are really about -- is a complicated policy, but it is really about who was affected by the new policies. host: let's hear from new york, ken, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not know really where to start, but i guess i just want to start with the insurance companies. there are so many different areas they can go to try to fix the problems that we have with health care. i myself am a health-care worker. i worked in the supply departmmnt of a hospital in a very big area and i know -- to

be frank, i am on long island, new york, and we all know the cost of living there compared to the rest of the country. and i am making $16 or $17 per hour depending on what kind of day i worked. the health insurance companies are making tens of billions of dollars of profit. the we look at the doctors in the doctor's office with you, treating you and you say, i need extra for a sinus infection and they say, we will not give you that one, will give you this generic. it doesn't even matter. i should just be going to the health care companies dr. ben, shourd 9? -- health care co.'s doctor

then, shouldn't i? guest: the caller raises a critical point, which is too often, health insurance companies are making the decisions. one of the greatest frustrations of doctors and nurses is precisely what the caller is referencing. there are what are called formularies, or basically list of what you can -- what will be covered and what will not be covered and that, in essence, helps drive health care decisions for patients. that is a problem. legislation was to try to empower consumers through their insurance companies. for the first time, we have rules around and things like pre-existing conditions and ensuring that you will not face this gigantic crisis because of

you have diseases. and things like the health care practice and the insurance company practice of when you get sick, specifically, when you need insurance and they deny you coverage -- of those types of practices will end with this legislation. how the goal is to rebalance -- the goal is to rebalance the power of insurance companies and baselines and consumer protections for all americans. host: neera tanden is a former adviser to kathleen sebelius, and also policy director for the clinton presidential campaign, and also the director of domestic policy for the obama /biden domestic campaign. what was it like from your end in getting this whole bill enacted into law? guest: it was a tough slog it.

obviously, there were a number of issues. this is a complicated area. new policy initiatives -- new policy issues would come up all the time. it was an intellectual challenge because at the end of the day of, the most important thing was getting it right for the american people. this was an important piece of legislation that would touch most americans. we wanted to be sure that we got it right and to have a balance of policy. the president was focused on that, as well as secretary sebelius. there were a lot of ups and downs and numerous times we thought we were on the cusp of victory and it turns out we were on the cusp of defeat. a lot of brave members of congress let legislation passed.

we need to make sure that health care is a affordable for all americans and there may be tinkering down the line of what needs to worker. but overall, the framework is a fundamental change and will help specifically 32 million american veteran not have health insurance. host: wichita, kan., rita, democrat, but good morning. caller: i have a couple of questions about the health care law that has come in. and i am first of all, very in support of what the president has accomplished this year, getting the past -- getting that past. my question is, senior citizens

, beeing pro security, why there is no coverage for vision and dental through medicare. you start having access to dental problems, vision problems as a senior. i, myself, have only had to have surgery one time. host: we will stop you there. vision and dental, what can you say? guest: this was an interesting area where we were studying benefits for all americans and we were trying to adequately provide insurance for the uninsured. in most areas, this compete very well with the private sector and in some areas it does not compete as well.

if you're under 65, generally speaking, drug coverage is through insurance companies. improving the benefits of medicare is an important issue. the health care reform debate, which was more focused on the under 65, because the vast majority of those over 65 have health insurance. but most importantly, there are new preventive benefits for medicare. i am not sure if vision and dental are covered in those benefits. again, alternately, we will close the doughnut hole. host: is there anything else you want to bring up? caller: that was one thing, and are they going to change the laws on pre-existing conditions with medicare? because i know if you have been in renal failure or if you have

kidney disease or having to go for work on your kidneys, they will not take you. guest: pre-existing conditions is a huge issue. it is absolutely the case that there will be new regulations for all americans are round pre- existing conditions. it is immediately affecting children, and what is great about the debate so far is that they have actually stepped up and said they will address some of these issues. in terms of medicare and pre- existing conditions, they should not actually have pre-existing conditions, so i urge you to check with your doctor's about those issues. that scenario should not be+ happening. host: 1 your rights=/% through twitter about this $250 -- one

viewer writes about this to under $50 check through twitter. canopies that together? guest: it is affecting seniors to come up against the dollar a whole. the idea of this is that -- come up against the doughnut hole. the idea of this is for all drug cost of to a certain amount, i think it is about $2,500, you have a prescription drug coverage. then there is a whole from $2,500 to $5,000, where costs above that you pay those. for every one of them, when they have catastrophic, they have coverage again. i think that was a little bit driven by cost as legislation. people wanted to apply limits.

this has been an area of concern for a long time. the idea of this is that for those people coming up against the doughnut hole, which is not every senior, but a smaller group of seniors. they will receive a $250 check. an alternate, will be closing the doughnut hole, so those issues -- ultimately, we will be closing the doughnut hole, so those issues will be addressed. host: michael from indiana, go ahead. caller: for all of those people on extended unemployment, when they do not get the extension, what do you do with all of those people that were not eligible for medicaid and medicare and welfare? where are you going to get the money for all the people that do

have to go on welfare because benefits? guest: that is an important point of the unemployment jobs debate. for people who lose their benefits and the is their ability to pay for health care and other things, they come into the safety net. sometimes those costs are shifted to states. sometimes they're shifted to the federal government. i think the caller's point is that we do end up paying one or the other and it would be helpful to make sure there is an extension of unemployment benefits. host: spokane, washington, tom, independent. ' caller: i was watching your show earlier and i do tend to agree with the caller that you do have a tendency to have left- wing advocate. i saw that guy the other day when i had a heavy sleds.

-- that had a heavy slant. but i think she is good. she is doing a very good job of trying to explain what is obviously a very complex program. the biggest problem with the program with regard to myself, is why does it have to be so complicated? is 2700 pages. -- it is 2700 pages. ñii have one question, and that would be, why did the democrats ignored tort reform? guest: tort reform is actually an important part of this. there's a lot of debate about how much it actually impacts costs. their arguments that it promotes doctors to play defensive

medicine, which drives up costs. there are other cities that showed that states that have had -- studies that show that states that have had aggressive programs, their costs are still -pvery high, like states like texas. this is an important debate. it is not entirely clear what the true measure of reform would be in this area because we do not know if the tort reform does lower-cost and we need more information. -- does lower-cost and we need more information. -- we do not know if tort reform does lower costs and we need more information. we have different examples and

models around tort reform to see what works best and we need to gain information so we can make better federal policy. the whole area of tort reform -- there is nothing that the state could not experiment with. last week, the president put forward that the states could start drawing down money for different experiments on tort reform. and there is another issue that you raised that i want to touch upon briefly, which is, why does the legislation have to be so complicated? why does it take 2700 pages to actually address this legislation? that is a really important question and the reason, i think in part, is because the president made a commitment. if you like your health care, nothing changes. for the vast majority of for the oast majority of

face a different doctor, insurance company, you will keep the health insurance that you have. insurance companies cannot cherry pick the best people to cover any more. you have new protections. but that a central package will remain the same and you will not be forced to pay -- to pick a new doctor, new nurse, etcetera there is legislation trying to maintain the allegis -- the current system and the new system around it. in britain both systems around the current system, it -- in building both systems around the current systems, it made it more complicated. i've been one of the reasons why we are so complicated is because the president did want to make sure that people could keep their health insurance building

on the current system and a longer piece of legislation. host: we have about 10 minutes left with our guest. good morning, adrian. what would you like to say? caller: for the public cost of health care, would it have been better to " -- to offer the -- option or the single payer -- to single payer? guest: obviously, a public plan was an important area of debate and discussion, and the president supported a public plan. it was not something that could

get through congress. other countries have single payer systems and they are cheaper than ours. that is something that allows people -- a lot of people believe we could be more efficient. that is something we could look at. again, the president made the commitment that if you like your health care, nothing would change. if people do not like their insurance system, the way they are receiving health care, if we had gone to a single payer system, that would have radically restructured the system. maybe in a more efficient way, but it would have changed the way people receive health care. it was not an option for the president to ensure that he kept his promise. a single payer plan probably

would have pushed costs down somewhat,ut a fair way to look at this legislation is to see it as a model by which we use private insurance to lower costs. if it is not effective, then i hope people will look at returning to republic plan and see if that will work better. but we are going to give this -- returning to a public plan and see if that will work better. the we're going to give this one a chance. host: there is this from the open " washington post" -- any thoughts? guest: this is an important area, which is, there is a lot of bureaucracy and red tape that is created in an effort to ensure that insurance companies

try not to cover people, and when they cover people, they try g are particularly expensive. when people hold jobs inñié@ te insurance industry, they are jobs created within the insurance they create a system by which insurance companies cannot use these tactics, and we hope that these tactics will go away. a few years ago, insurance companies spend $50 billion a year trying not to cover people. the legislation really focuses on trying to lower those costs and essentially get them out of the health care system by covering everyone. finally, i would say one of the

advances in legislation was3 using help information technology and other means by which we can reduce the level of bureaucratic paperwork to minimize the system. there is a whole study that says one out of every $4 is spent on administration. host: one more phone call from florida, burris, an independent. caller: i am on medicare, and i just got a letterw3 from cathere sebelius that my medicare is going to go up, so i'm sure that my medicare supplement policy is going to go up to make of for the shortfall ofw3 cutting t medicare advantage. xdthe deduction for my social security is added back in the

$176 iñrxdñr paid to blue crosse shield on a monthly basis, that is not tax deductible. host: what is your point? caller: in maine, new hampshire,3w and tennessee, its not worked there. if it has not worked in these states, why are we experimenting and where are we finding out that all of these costs are going to go iballoon? host:, let me jump over to a republican collar and then we will come back. where are your thoughts, mitchell? caller: i have a 7-year-old kid

and he has several medical conditions, but mainly summit condition from [unintelligible] trying to host: let's move on to something more substantive. what do you have, john? caller: i'm a 46-year-old man and permanently disabled on medicare. i have to devote children at home, one about to graduate -- i hhve two children at home, what about to graduate. my son is going to be going to college. because i'm on medicare, i have no way to put them on any insurance. my daughter, when she graduates next year, she will be the same, without any kind of insurance. host: can you help with that? guest: yes, there are new regulations. the insurance agencies have ssepped up to help ensure that people under 26 can stay on

insurance. medicaid programs actually have -- if you have private insurance, it's true follow that they should be able to get coverage. -- it should follow that they should be able to get coverage. host: to that of all -- earlier caller's point, in his view, it has not worked in several states. why should it work nntionally? guest: it really has not been tested in four states. the one model that a similar is the one in massachusetts. the big difference between the massachusetts legislation and massachusettsçó has a stake neay -- neither really tried nor could address loring costs. t(çóand it is also -- massachuss as a state need your really tried nor could it address

lowering costs. maine is an example of insurance regulations, but they did not follow the entire of it -- the entirety of the legislation. i think what we have learned from massachusetts, and this was incorporated into the legislation, is that you need to help lower costs. çó to take acti6qñ steps to reduce costs in the health care systems. that is why there is that in the legislation. but there are also new innovations on payment reform, ways with which we can reward doctors for quality instead of simply rewarding them for each test they do. those drivers are in the legislation that was not in massachusetts. host: next call from tampa, florida, good morning. caller: i have a problem that i

do not know quite how to handle. i'm 63 years old and have exhausted all of my unemployment benefits. i have had two open heart surgeries. work is just not available. i have social security coming. i get $528 per month and how i'm doing this all this smoke and mirrors. i have no idea how lines are writing. -- how i am surviving. is there anything down the line, some kind of benefit to help us survive? guest: in terms of your insurance coverage, the most important thing is that the states will be read -- will be creating this high risk insurance pool. for those who have high risk conditions and very serious health care costs, which drive up their cost of insurance, will be eligible for these state high-risk insurance pools, and

if your state is not partisan bidding, the federal government is actually creating a back up -- if your state is not participating, the federal government is actually trading a backup plan. you will receive subsidies to be able to purchase of tax credits, and there will also be a large expansion of medicaid so that you will be able to afford health care and to be able to purchase health care. i would take the immediate step of going to your state, going to healthreform.gov and look at the issues. host: what else should viewers know about the implementation of the early phases? guest: i think the most important thing is if you have particular health concerns, go to healthreform.gov. to healthreform.gov.